Windows hops on the tiny tablet train that Android and iOS have already boarded.

Back in March, Microsoft made some changes to its Windows 8 logo requirements that seemed to be opening the door to smaller tablets. Now we've got one more piece of information suggesting that they're coming soon. In a since-removed listing, Amazon outed Acer's W3-810—a Windows 8 tablet with an 8.1-inch 1280×800 display that was listed for $379.99.

The Verge reports that the 1.1 pound tablet listing included a 1.8GHz dual-core Intel Atom Z2760 (a Clover Trail chip, rather than an upgraded Clover Trail+ or Bay Trail model), 2GB of RAM, and 32GB of storage, as well as 2MP rear- and front-facing cameras and micro USB and micro HDMI ports. Most of these specs are roughly identical to what we saw in Acer's 10.1-inch Iconia W510, so the W3 should suffice for most basic Metro and desktop apps as long as you're not doing work that requires a fast graphics processor.

As with any leaked hardware, take all of this information with just a grain of salt. The price and any of these specs could very well change before the official release (in the event that this device is actually released at all). The specs and photos do appear to be plausible, though, and with the success of small tablets like the iPad mini, Nexus 7, and Kindle Fire, it comes as no surprise that Acer (and, by extension, Microsoft) wants to get into the game. The company also recently announced a 7.9-inch Android tablet, which it unveiled alongside a few other new Windows 8 PCs on Friday.

I've always maintained that having to pay the "Microsoft Tax" will always price a device higher than the same spec'ed device on Android (where there is a no charge option for the OS.) As evidence, look at the Nexus 7 being under $200 while this tablet is nearly twice the price.

This inevitably means that Android has the best price and is part of the larger Android app ecosystem, where-as Microsoft is a late comer and has an insufficient presence to justify someone paying more for it. Then of course there is similarly spec'ed Apple device, which is going to be even more expensive than the Microsoft, but in that case you're paying for the Apple "caché" as well as a usually better industrial design and function.

(I'm no OS bigot, and YMMV... I prefer Android on my tablets but I have and use both it and iOS. I do not have, nor can I ever see wanting, a Windows OS driven device. I have Windows on my Desktop devices but I am writing this post on a Mac.)

The only way I can see Microsoft getting around the problem, is some clever way to license a mobile device in essence for free based on having an existing OS on your desktop or something... some way to move the Windows Tax off of the mobile device.

However if they only have a 32GB size, that's a show stopper. Do not, do NOT get full Windows 8 with a 32GB SSD. I decided to cheap out and go 64GB with my tablet and that's not enough. Windows + the programs I need to do my job + some local documents == 40GB.

However if they only have a 32GB size, that's a show stopper. Do not, do NOT get full Windows 8 with a 32GB SSD. I decided to cheap out and go 64GB with my tablet and that's not enough. Windows + the programs I need to do my job + some local documents == 40GB.

I've always maintained that having to pay the "Microsoft Tax" will always price a device higher than the same spec'ed device on Android (where there is a no charge option for the OS.) As evidence, look at the Nexus 7 being under $200 while this tablet is nearly twice the price.

This tablet is also x86 based, has more storage, more RAM, a far faster CPU and runs a full version of Windows (although it won't get great results with a lot of apps). The two aren't really directly comparable.

However if they only have a 32GB size, that's a show stopper. Do not, do NOT get full Windows 8 with a 32GB SSD. I decided to cheap out and go 64GB with my tablet and that's not enough. Windows + the programs I need to do my job + some local documents == 40GB.

It's a Clover Trail device, which means Windows RT. 32GB would probably suffice, but it sounds like you want full Windows Pro. Therefore, this is not the tablet you're looking for.

yes it is. x86 are not RT.

Now this form factor would be great for RT where people just want to read, browse and watch media.

However if they only have a 32GB size, that's a show stopper. Do not, do NOT get full Windows 8 with a 32GB SSD. I decided to cheap out and go 64GB with my tablet and that's not enough. Windows + the programs I need to do my job + some local documents == 40GB.

It's a Clover Trail device, which means Windows RT. 32GB would probably suffice, but it sounds like you want full Windows Pro. Therefore, this is not the tablet you're looking for.

yes it is. x86 are not RT.

Now this form factor would be great for RT where people just want to read, browse and watch media.

Ah, ok, I was confused there. That makes this tablet much more interesting.

Ah, ok, I was confused there. That makes this tablet much more interesting.

This actually looks like something I might be interested in as well, in both my business and for my personal use. I need a basic system with a touchscreen for some simple POS software, this would remove a lot of bulk ( current running a touchscreen an ITX amd e350).

As for personal usage, it would be nice to be able to run a small Win8 tablet - while I do like my HP Touchpad, it's getting a little long in the tooth, and having to Splashtop into my laptop/desktop, while effective enough, does have a performance penalty.

I've always maintained that having to pay the "Microsoft Tax" will always price a device higher than the same spec'ed device on Android (where there is a no charge option for the OS.)

You're forgeting the 'tel' part of 'Wintel'. The cost of Intel CPUs is almost always more than a similar-performance ARM chip (to the extent that they can be compared).

Citation needed.

There were netbooks costing halve an iPad featuring both Windows and Intel. MS had cheap licenses for Windows on these machines.

Many netbook OEMs were allowed to install WinXP, because of its reduced hardware requirements. This was followed with the netbook-tailored Windows 7 Starter Edition. Both were cheaper to license, IIRC. Both were also hamstrung, and were not full Windows, to justify the lower license cost.

You're forgeting the 'tel' part of 'Wintel'. The cost of Intel CPUs is almost always more than a similar-performance ARM chip (to the extent that they can be compared).

That's true. But I was under the impression one could run Windows on ARM CPUs if they were sufficiently motivated...

That's another strike against Windows getting a successful ecosystem on mobile devices... they came out of the gates with TWO platforms to target for developers... (well three if you consider the non-touch oriented uses on a Desktop...) As far as I know about the beginnings of both Apple and Android, they started with one successful series of devices before attempting to add others into the ecosystem.

Ah, ok, I was confused there. That makes this tablet much more interesting.

This actually looks like something I might be interested in as well, in both my business and for my personal use. I need a basic system with a touchscreen for some simple POS software, this would remove a lot of bulk ( current running a touchscreen an ITX amd e350).

As for personal usage, it would be nice to be able to run a small Win8 tablet - while I do like my HP Touchpad, it's getting a little long in the tooth, and having to Splashtop into my laptop/desktop, while effective enough, does have a performance penalty.

Given the typically modest CPU requirements for POS, I can see tablets supplanting traditional POS hardware, at least in environments that don't require heavy duty cycles (boutique shop as opposed to grocery store).

There would also be hurdles, such as, USB to serial communication for cash drawers and printers, but those can be worked around.

I've always maintained that having to pay the "Microsoft Tax" will always price a device higher than the same spec'ed device on Android (where there is a no charge option for the OS.) As evidence, look at the Nexus 7 being under $200 while this tablet is nearly twice the price.

This inevitably means that Android has the best price and is part of the larger Android app ecosystem, where-as Microsoft is a late comer and has an insufficient presence to justify someone paying more for it. Then of course there is similarly spec'ed Apple device, which is going to be even more expensive than the Microsoft, but in that case you're paying for the Apple "caché" as well as a usually better industrial design and function.

(I'm no OS bigot, and YMMV... I prefer Android on my tablets but I have and use both it and iOS. I do not have, nor can I ever see wanting, a Windows OS driven device. I have Windows on my Desktop devices but I am writing this post on a Mac.)

The only way I can see Microsoft getting around the problem, is some clever way to license a mobile device in essence for free based on having an existing OS on your desktop or something... some way to move the Windows Tax off of the mobile device.

The Android app ecosystem is larger than the entire Windows ecosystem? Really? All the x86 Windows apps that run on Windows and will run on this tablet, is smaller than the total number of "android apps"?

The Android app ecosystem is larger than the entire Windows ecosystem? Really? All the x86 Windows apps that run on Windows and will run on this tablet, is smaller than the total number of "android apps"?

When you consider "built for purpose", there are MANY more apps designed for mobile for any other mobile OS than Windows... I don't want to run some app from 1992 that was designed for Windows 3.1 on my tablet.... YMMV

Anyhow, looks neat, and I wish we would see AMD solutions come out. More of a fanboy thing for me... I could see myself getting one, except my rpgs in PDF format would do better with a larger screen, right?

Very interesting. I am trying to imagine the possible uses of a tablet of this size with all the peripheral devices that Windows supports. Printers, extra screens, storage, card readers... mobile OSes have gotten pretty capable the last couple of years, but Windows still has some advantages that make this look quite appealing.

The Android app ecosystem is larger than the entire Windows ecosystem? Really? All the x86 Windows apps that run on Windows and will run on this tablet, is smaller than the total number of "android apps"?

When you consider "built for purpose", there are MANY more apps designed for mobile for any other mobile OS than Windows... I don't want to run some app from 1992 that was designed for Windows 3.1 on my tablet.... YMMV

I don't want to run "apps" on my tablet.Want to watch some on my Android tablet? Have to use an app because the browser/flash sucks.Windows tablet? Use IE, which works fine in Win 8 on a tablet (much much nicer than on Android in my experience).Websites? Well the special app for the website works better IME on Android, but on Windows, because the browser is superior, I can just use the browser.

So while Android may have lots of apps, half of them are only required because you can't do "normal" computer things with Android, which means that while on Android I have a handful of most used apps, they all relate to websites I could just access through the browser on a normal Windows computer/tablet. The only reason the apps exist is because the traditional method/experience is crap on Android, but nowhere near as terrible IME on Windows.

The Android app ecosystem is larger than the entire Windows ecosystem? Really? All the x86 Windows apps that run on Windows and will run on this tablet, is smaller than the total number of "android apps"?

When you consider "built for purpose", there are MANY more apps designed for mobile for any other mobile OS than Windows... I don't want to run some app from 1992 that was designed for Windows 3.1 on my tablet.... YMMV

Even outside that example, how many Windows programs simply require more power than Cloverfield provides, or have interfaces that aren't really ideal for touch, and are optimized for keyboard and mouse? Even if you look at Microsoft's past tablet attempts, hoe many programs were made explicitly for that?

Native design definitely matters. I personally dislike Android, but its far ahead in this regard, as is iOS. I'm the biggest fan of Windows 8/RT amongst my friends I know of, but I know good and well that its got a while before its competitive for the format. Likewise, its going to he a while before going the WinRT environment (Metro) can stand on its own.

I hope it'll get there sooner rather than later, but I still think it'll be a few years. And I'm fine with that. But that's my choice, it has a crutch, and there's no need for regular consumers to wait for Win8/RT to catch up when Android and iOS are here and good now.

The Android app ecosystem is larger than the entire Windows ecosystem? Really? All the x86 Windows apps that run on Windows and will run on this tablet, is smaller than the total number of "android apps"?

When you consider "built for purpose", there are MANY more apps designed for mobile for any other mobile OS than Windows... I don't want to run some app from 1992 that was designed for Windows 3.1 on my tablet.... YMMV

Even outside that example, how many Windows programs simply require more power than Cloverfield provides, or have interfaces that aren't really ideal for touch, and are optimized for keyboard and mouse? Even if you look at Microsoft's past tablet attempts, hoe many programs were made explicitly for that?

Native design definitely matters. I personally dislike Android, but its far ahead in this regard, as is iOS. I'm the biggest fan of Windows 8/RT amongst my friends I know of, but I know good and well that its got a while before its competitive for the format. Likewise, its going to he a while before going the WinRT environment (Metro) can stand on its own.

I hope it'll get there sooner rather than later, but I still think it'll be a few years. And I'm fine with that. But that's my choice, it has a crutch, and there's no need for regular consumers to wait for Win8/RT to catch up when Android and iOS are here and good now.

Catch up to what? Microsoft already dominates the software space. You think maybe the hardware is catching up to them? Just like Ultrabooks now are nothing to sneeze at in terms of performance?

Full Windows is a real attraction, though obviously you'd really need to be careful about what sort of applications you plan to run. Navigating the desktop on an 8" screen without a precise digitiser might be a bit tricky.

This really is what I'm looking for to replace my original Kindle Fire. But I'd wait for devices with the new Atom coming in the fall, and I'd want higher resolution and slightly smaller size(say 7.5"). Win8's multitasking model is way beyond Android and iOS, and that is mostly why I'd want it over the other two.

Full Windows is a real attraction, though obviously you'd really need to be careful about what sort of applications you plan to run. Navigating the desktop on an 8" screen without a precise digitiser might be a bit tricky.

That's too heavy indeed. An 8 inch tablet needs to be light enough to easily hold close for extended periods for e-reading and for using the desktop.

WinRT is short for the new Run Time API, successor to win32 and mostly supporting all IA32/AMD64/ARM platforms. Sometimes it has to be written in a managed language, unless the ABI you need is only provided for C/C++/Pascal. WinRT bears no and some relation to Windows 8 RT, which is Windows 8 with Office preinstalled, except that you can't use that Office for actually conducting Business, and you have to get all your software through the Windows Store. You can get Windows 8 software through the Windows Store too, but not necessarily the same software for Windows 8 RT.

Hope that straightened things up for you. When my grandma finally passes her MCSE, I'm definitely treating her to one of these.

The Android app ecosystem is larger than the entire Windows ecosystem? Really? All the x86 Windows apps that run on Windows and will run on this tablet, is smaller than the total number of "android apps"?

When you consider "built for purpose", there are MANY more apps designed for mobile for any other mobile OS than Windows... I don't want to run some app from 1992 that was designed for Windows 3.1 on my tablet.... YMMV

Even outside that example, how many Windows programs simply require more power than Cloverfield provides, or have interfaces that aren't really ideal for touch, and are optimized for keyboard and mouse? Even if you look at Microsoft's past tablet attempts, hoe many programs were made explicitly for that?

Native design definitely matters. I personally dislike Android, but its far ahead in this regard, as is iOS. I'm the biggest fan of Windows 8/RT amongst my friends I know of, but I know good and well that its got a while before its competitive for the format. Likewise, its going to he a while before going the WinRT environment (Metro) can stand on its own.

I hope it'll get there sooner rather than later, but I still think it'll be a few years. And I'm fine with that. But that's my choice, it has a crutch, and there's no need for regular consumers to wait for Win8/RT to catch up when Android and iOS are here and good now.

Catch up to what? Microsoft already dominates the software space. You think maybe the hardware is catching up to them? Just like Ultrabooks now are nothing to sneeze at in terms of performance?

Hardware and the market is catching up to what they sort of imagined with TabletPCs, but now MS has to catch up with the way the market decided it wanted things.Different style of UI, stylus isn't assumed, less technical users want/expect a store, lots of apps meant for the touch UI, etc. They're ahead AND behind, depending on how you look at things, really.

I mean, really, if you're looking to do "real work," this seems to be the wrong product/solution. You'd go for the ultrabook, the latop, the desktop. Maybe this could make a point of sale system, guest register, and other lighter things, but overall I'd say its more a consumption/entertainment device. Its like comparing a scooter and a dump truck. they'll both get you around, but their designs and purposes are fairly different. Neither is ideal for the other's intended usage. And, as a consumer fun tablet, Windows has catching up to do IMO. Not for work, not for mid to high end gaming, but for a simple consumption/entertainment device.

There is 2 "winRT" out there - one is the new API that I'd a native interface to windows, callable from .net and c++ code. Then there's the OS version that is for ARM chips.

The is version hasn't sold because it doesn't run normal windows programs, makes sense as the only reason you'd buy windows on a tablet is to keep all your old programs, so that leaves windows on a x86 chip which turns out is too heavy and power hungry for most people.

WinRT is short for the new Run Time API, successor to win32 and mostly supporting all IA32/AMD64/ARM platforms. Sometimes it has to be written in a managed language, unless the ABI you need is only provided for C/C++/Pascal. WinRT bears no and some relation to Windows 8 RT, which is Windows 8 with Office preinstalled, except that you can't use that Office for actually conducting Business, and you have to get all your software through the Windows Store. You can get Windows 8 software through the Windows Store too, but not necessarily the same software for Windows 8 RT.

All the x86 Windows apps that run on Windows and will run on this tablet ...

An important question is how many Windows apps will be convenient to run on a device with (1) no mouse, (2) no physical keyboard, and (3) an 8" screen, a chunk of which is taken up during input by a virtual keyboard, due to point (2).

For now, my estimate is that the ranking for total "touch input only friendly" software options is iOS > Android >> Windows.

The Android app ecosystem is larger than the entire Windows ecosystem? Really? All the x86 Windows apps that run on Windows and will run on this tablet, is smaller than the total number of "android apps"?

When you consider "built for purpose", there are MANY more apps designed for mobile for any other mobile OS than Windows... I don't want to run some app from 1992 that was designed for Windows 3.1 on my tablet.... YMMV

I don't want to run "apps" on my tablet.Want to watch some on my Android tablet? Have to use an app because the browser/flash sucks.Windows tablet? Use IE, which works fine in Win 8 on a tablet (much much nicer than on Android in my experience).Websites? Well the special app for the website works better IME on Android, but on Windows, because the browser is superior, I can just use the browser.

So while Android may have lots of apps, half of them are only required because you can't do "normal" computer things with Android, which means that while on Android I have a handful of most used apps, they all relate to websites I could just access through the browser on a normal Windows computer/tablet. The only reason the apps exist is because the traditional method/experience is crap on Android, but nowhere near as terrible IME on Windows.

So YMMV.

Win 8 is good, but Win RT has a terribly slow browser. I have a Surface RT for a project at work, and it is just laggy as hell. Just to make sure I was not imagining things I did some tests at Staples. A Surface RT loaded a web page in 1 min 12 seconds while the exact same page loaded in about 30 seconds in Chrome on a Nexus 7 and Galaxy Note with the same Tegra processor. The browser is also pretty crashy compared to Android tablets I have used. Without 3rd party ARM apps for the desktop, RT is pretty useless. I'm betting that in a year or two as Atoms become lower power and cheaper, RT disappears completely and Win 8/9 becomes the only Microsoft tablet platform.